ABSTRACT
This chapter starts with a paradox, namely, the widespread talk of a 'crisis of masculinity' alongside the strong endorsement of Bob Connell's concept of 'hegemonic masculinity', a term which implies the opposite of crisis. Hegemonic masculinity brings together two terms, neither of which is easily defined, given the chequered and contested intellectual history of each. Connell's introduction of the term hegemonic masculinity has been widely taken up. It has inspired and influenced much contemporary writing on men and masculinity, including that conducted by criminologists. Despite these, and other, positive outcomes of Connell's subtle theorizing, hegemonic masculinity is a problematic concept. Not all of the problems can be laid directly at Connell's door, since some stem from its subsequent usage rather than Connell's careful definitions. One consequence of reducing hegemonic masculinity to a set of traits or characteristics is to render the notion static, not something which is incessantly struggled over as Connell's theoretical usage insists.
